Juvenile Justice Policy and Data Board - Board Meeting June 29, 2022 2:00pm - 4:00pm - Mass.gov
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Juvenile Justice
Policy and Data Board
Board Meeting
June 29, 2022
2:00pm – 4:00pmAgenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Approval of March Meeting Minutes 3. Updates from the OCA 4. Updates on the state Diversion Learning Lab 5. Subcommittee Report Out 6. Board Member Updates
OCA Updates Data Website Updates • FY22 updates include new pages: Adjudications & dispositions data New probation new case starts visualizations • FY23 updates to include new pages: Racial and ethnic disparities School discipline and arrests Juvenile Records Updates
Legislative Update Senate vote soon: • An Act updating bail procedures for justice-involved youth (S.2943, H.1557): Eliminates the $40 bail administrative fee for youth, authority to decide on detaining a youth overnight resides with Bail Magistrate (not the OIC), allows virtual payment options based on JJPAD 2019 recommendation! • An Act promoting diversion of juveniles to community supervision and services (S.2942, H.1569): expands opportunity for judicial diversion for youth charged with certain offenses Budget Updates: Still in conference, but funding in both House/Senate budgets for: • Expansion of Diversion Learning Lab sites • Significant expansion of Center on Child Wellbeing & Trauma
State Diversion Learning Lab Updates
State Diversion Learning Lab Updates
Referrals by Sending County
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
25
20
20
# of Referrals
15 12
10
10
5
0
Essex Middlesex Worcester
Sending County
Referrals by Referral Point
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
# of Referral Points
20 18
15
9
10
0
0
Police Clerk Magistrate District Attorney Judge
Referral PointState Diversion Learning Lab Updates:
Offense Type and Age
Referrals by Offense Type
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
30
21
# of Referrals
20
9
10 6
3 2 1
0
Drugs Motor Vehicle Person Property Public Order Weapons
Offense Type
Referrals by Age at Referral
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
15
10
# of Referrals
10 9 8
4 5 4
5
2
0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Age at ReferralLearning Lab Updates:
Demographics
Intakes by Race (All-Time as of 5/31/22) Intakes by Gender Identity
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
1
3%
2
7%
4, 14%
13, 45% 8, 28%
9, 31%
21, 72%
Latino/Hispanic
White
Black/ African American
Asian Boy/Man Girl/Woman
Total Number of
Intakes
29Learning Lab Updates: Assessments,
MASYI-2
Alcohol/Drug Use Levels Angry-Irritable Levels Depressed-Anxious Levels
(All-Time) (All-Time) (All-Time)
3 4
2 1
9 7
16 17
25
Normal Caution Warning Normal Caution Warning Normal Caution Warning
Somatic Complaints Levels Suicide Ideation Levels Thought Disturbance Levels
(All-Time) (All-Time) (All-Time)
3 4
5
10
3 10
15 21 7
Normal Caution Warning Normal Caution Warning Normal Caution Warning
Total Number of
MAYSIs Completed
28
Data as of 5/31/22Learning Lab Updates: Assessments,
YLS
Risk/Need Level
(All-Time as of 5/31/22)
14
12
12
# of YLS Assessments
10
8 7
6
6
4
2
0
Low Moderate High
Risk/Need Level
Total Number of YLS
Completed
25Subcommittee Report Out
CBI Subcommittee Meetings since March 2022: • March: Diversion Learning Lab updates and a presentation on the findings from the CRA caregiver focus groups • April: Presentation by representatives in New York and Connecticut discussing recent reforms made to their CRA systems • May: Presentation on the results of the OCA/CAFL CRA case file review and discussion around CRA services and gaps • June: Diversion Learning Lab updates and discussion of initial CRA report findings Where we’re headed: • July: Discussion re: Recommendations for improvements to the CRA System • September: Draft CRA report
CBI Subcommittee
Other states’ CRA reforms
Connecticut • Eliminated school-based petitions (2017) and
community-based petitions (2020)
• Instead, all referrals (police, school, community,
parents and self-referral) now go to the Youth
Service Bureau which coordinate services for
youth (0-18 years old) that focus on delinquency
prevention
New York • Used as a last option only after all other diversion
attempt have been exhausted
• PINS Diversion agencies must provide a written
notice to the potential petitioner documenting the
different efforts made to prevent filing, and Court
Clerks cannot accept PINS petitions
unless they have attached the written
noticeCBI Subcommittee
CBI Subcommittee Draft Findings
CAFL Case File Caregiver
Review Focus Groups
Subcommittee
Public Data
Presentations
CRA
100+
Interviews Research Policy Reviews
FindingsCBI Subcommittee
1. The goals of the 2012 reforms to the
CHINS system have only been partially
realized
Limit Juvenile
Reduce harm
Court
for youth
involvement
Increase
supports for
youthFinding #1: The goals of the 2012 reforms to the CHINS system have only been partially realized
CBI Subcommittee
CRA filings decreased 24% between FY12
and FY19
CRA Filings by FY
10,000
9,000 9,251 9,354 9,293
8,873 CHINS
8,000 Reform
8,088 7,905
7,000 7,266
Number of filings
6,891
6,000
6,136 COVID
5,843 5,712
5,000 5,572 5,388 5,227 5,212
4,000
3,000 3,596
2,912
2,000
1,000
0
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21
Fiscal Year
Initial Draft AnalysisFinding #1: The goals of the 2012 reforms to the CHINS system have only been partially realized
CBI Subcommittee
The reforms reduced some harmful impacts
of the CRA process, but not all
• May not be confined in • In some cases, the reforms introduced
more court involvement, which can have
shackles or similar
negative consequences
restraints
• Shall not be placed in a • Caregivers reported the process adversely
affected their and their child’s lives
lock up
• CRAs do not appear on • Professionals noted the process makes it
difficult to solve family problems or
CORIs concerns that may be impacting the
• Set timelines for the CRA child’s behavioral concerns
court process
• Research indicates that congregate care
• Provided rights to placements are associated with
negative consequences
children and familiesFinding #1: The goals of the 2012 reforms to the CHINS system have only been partially realized
CBI Subcommittee
The reforms increased community-based
supports, but did not address CRA system
supports
• Created Family Resource Centers (FRC)
• Professionals, advocates and caregivers all report:
• Difficulty obtaining appropriate services for youth with CRA
• Mismatch between what services are needed and what are providedCBI Subcommittee
2. There is no shared understanding of what
the current CRA system is for, leading to
misinformation at every level
• No common understanding of what CRA process could/should
accomplish
• Widespread, if unfounded, belief that the CRA process provides
special access to services professionals recommending parents
file a CRA
• Significant confusion on what CRA process entails and what it can
result inCBI Subcommittee
3. The system operates with significant
differences in different parts of the state
Court county
disparities
Pre-filing
intervention
measuresFinding #3: The system operates with significant differences in different parts of the state
CBI Subcommittee
Some court counties use the CRA process
at higher rates than others
CRA Filings by County Population (FY21)
25% 23%
20%
15% 14%
15% 13%
12%13% 13%13%
Percent
11%
10% 9% 8% 9%
7% 7%
5% 6% 6%
5% 4% 4%
3% 3%
2%
0%
County Percent of All MA Youth (6-17 yo) County Percent of All MA CRA Cases
Initial Draft AnalysisFinding #3: The system operates with significant differences in different parts of the state
CBI Subcommittee
Pre- and post- filing practices vary
• Practices differ significantly by court, DCF area office, CAFL
area office, Probation office, FRC location, DMH office, school
district and county
• Variations in supports youth receive based on service
availability in their area as well as local agency (mainly schools,
DCF, DMH) practices
• Caregivers are not routinely/uniformly told about FRC in their
area before filing a CRACBI Subcommittee
4. There are disparities in how the CRA
system is used and who is referred to it
Racial and
ethnic
disparities
Certain groups
of youth of
concernFinding #4: There are disparities in how the CRA system is used and who is referred to it
CBI Subcommittee
Black youth and Latino youth are
overrepresented
CRA Filings by Race (FY18-FY21)
FY21 34% 28% 14% 4% 19%
Fiscal Year
FY20 34% 29% 16% 5% 16%
FY19 36% 32% 16% 4% 13%
FY18 35% 31% 16% 3% 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of CRA Cases
White Hispanic/Latinx Black/African American Other race/Multi Race Not reported
Race/ethnicity RoD (MA Pop) RRI (White Youth)
White 0.54 n/a
Hispanic/ Latino 1.45 2.67
Black/ African American 1.44 2.66
Other race/ Multi Race 0.55 1.02
Initial Draft AnalysisFinding #4: There are disparities in how the CRA system is used and who is referred to it
CBI Subcommittee
Youth of color and other groups of youth
may be treated differently
• Widespread concern (professionals in system, advocate,
caregivers) about:
o Racial and ethnic disparities in referrals + CRA process
o Inadequate translation services for families throughout the
CRA process
o Youth with specific needs being processed through CRA
system rather than having their needs met elsewhere (e.g.,
immigrant youth, LGBTQ+ youth, girls, adopted youth, youth
with learning disabilities)CBI Subcommittee
5. Many youth in the CRA system could
have their needs better met outside of
the CRA system
• Barriers to obtaining services in community push families toward the CRA
system
• Professionals (e.g. schools, therapists, police) who are not sure how else to
help a family push them toward CRA
• Families desperate for help come to court looking for immediate support
• In some cases, these families have been turned down at other doors (e.g.
requests for DCF voluntary services, DMH services, or placement at
residential school)
• However, the CRA process does not provide the special or quick access to
services people are looking for
• Process for getting connected to services through the CRA
process is slow (due to nature of court process)
• Courts do not have “special” access to services, can’t order
agencies or schools to provide particular servicesCBI Subcommittee
6. The CRA process can be a helpful “fail
safe” for families, particularly for youth
with complex needs that require multiple
agency involvement
• A subset of youth in the CRA system have complex needs and/or are involved
with multiple state agencies
• The CRA process can help bring stakeholders together to solve challenges
when prior attempts have failed
• Three of the most frequently cited benefits of CRA system:
• Provides a potential venue for case conferencing
• Connection with a caring adult who can act as case manager/advocate
to move things forward
• Access to counsel as a means for educational advocacy
for youthCBI Subcommittee
7. There is limited data on outcomes from
the CRA system that could be
used to evaluate the system
Example questions we cannot answer:
1. What steps were taken before a CRA petition was filed? Was it truly
used as a “last resort?”
2. Was the party who filed CRA petition (e.g., family, school) satisfied
with the result of the CRA process? Did it help address the issues that
brough them to the court?
3. What impact does the CRA process have on later life outcomes, such
as likelihood of involvement with delinquency/ criminal case later in
life, or impact on educational outcomes?CBI Subcommittee
CBI Subcommittee Draft Findings:
1. The goals of the 2012 reforms to the CHINS system have only been partially realized
2. There is no shared understanding of what the current CRA system is for, leading to
misinformation at every level
3. The system operates with significant differences in different parts of the state
4. There are disparities in how the CRA system is used and who is referred to it
5. Many youth in the CRA system could have their needs better met outside of the
CRA system
6. The CRA process can be a helpful “fail safe” for families, particularly for youth with
complex needs that require multiple agency involvement
7. There is limited data on outcomes from the CRA system that could
be used to evaluate the systemData Subcommittee Meetings since March 2022: • March: Presentation and discussion on racial and ethnic disparities data at the overnight arrest point (based on OCA/DYS 2021 summer Rappaport fellow) • April: Presentation and discussion on racial and ethnic disparities data in applications for complaint (summons and arrests) • June: Presentation on Administrative Data Center fundamentals Where we’re headed: • July: FY22 data requests and review and approval of Racial and Ethnic Disparities Brief • September: Presentation from other states’ Administrative Data Centers
Data Subcommittee
What is the racial distribution of youth at the
beginning stages of the juvenile justice system?
Percent of Cases by Process Point and Race/Ethnicity
70% White
64%
Hispanic/Latino
60%
Black/African American
Other
50% 47%
42% 42%
40% 38%
35%
Percent
31%
30% 27% 28% 26%
22% 21% 23%
21%
20% 18% 17%
15%
10% 10%
10% 8%
4% 2% 3% 4%
0%
MA Youth Population Arrest-Based Summons-Based ONA Admissions Delinquency Filings Detention Admissions
(n=473,738) Applications Applications (n=460) (n=3,852) (n=553)
(n=2,811) (n=3,204)
Initial Draft AnalysisData Subcommittee
Data Subcommittee Testing Common
Hypotheses for RED
1. Differences in Offense Severity: Racial disparities in the use of
arrests vs summons can be explained by offense severity (e.g. “Youth
of color are brought to court for more serious crimes”)
2. Differences in Offense Type: Racial disparities in the use of arrests
vs summons can be explained by offense type (e.g. “Youth of color
are brought to court for offense types that are more likely to result
in arrest”)
3. Differences in Geography: Racial disparities in the use of arrests vs
summons can be explained by different regional practices (e.g.
“Some counties are more likely to use arrest vs summons than
others, and those same counties have a % percent of
youth of color than other counties”)Data Subcommittee
Differences in offense severity partially, but not
fully, explains racial disparities in the decision
to arrest vs issues summons.
• Among youth coming in at the same offense severity level, there are
still racial disparities:
Youth Race Felony % Arrested Misdemeanor %
Arrested
Black 82% 28%
Latino 88% 32%
White 77% 18%
• The disparities are more significant at the misdemeanor level.
Initial Draft AnalysisData Subcommittee
Differences in offense type partially, but not
fully, explains racial disparities in the decision
to arrest vs issues summons.
• Among youth coming in with the same offense type, we see
racial disparities.
Youth Race % Arrested % Arrested % Arrested % Arrested % Arrested
Drug Person Prop Weapons Public Order
Black 53% 62% 59% 89% 50%
Latino 81% 66% 67% 84% 57%
White 34% 49% 45% 64% 43%
Initial Draft AnalysisData Subcommittee
Differences in county-level practices impact
disparities
• Some counties use arrests more often than summons, and these
counties are ones that have a higher percentage of youth of
color – both in general and in terms of youth with complaint
applications.
Youth Barnstabl Berkshire Bristol Essex Franklin/ Hampde Middlese Norfolk Plymouth Suffolk Worceste
Race e Arrest Arrest % Arrest % Arrest % Hampshir n Arrest x Arrest Arrest % Arrest % Arrest % r Arrest
% e Arrest % % %
%
Black 46% 51% 47% 35% 17% 63% 49% 46% 53% 76% 55%
Latino 48% 83% 49% 60% 54% 74% 47% 48% 59% 69% 60%
White 28% 57% 40% 38% 51% 54% 38% 26% 30% 52% 47%
Initial Draft AnalysisData Subcommittee Data Subcommittee Researches Administrative Data Centers
Data Subcommittee 2022 Data Availability Report Findings Finding #3: Barriers to matching data across process points makes it difficult-to-impossible for the Board to accurately assess the impact of some policy and practice changes Finding #4: Barriers to accessing data with greater levels of detail negatively impacts the Board’s ability to conduct deeper analysis and make focused policy recommendations Finding #5: There is limited ability to report data on youth involved in multiple state systems Finding #6: There is limited ability to report data on youth life outcomes over time
Data Subcommittee
2022 JJPAD Recommendations
Recommendation #1: The JJPAD Board should study the
feasibility of creating an Administrative Data Center to serve as
Massachusetts’ central coordinator of record-level state data for
child-serving entitiesData Subcommittee
What is an administrative data center?
Administrative data center: a central, often third party,
organization that links cross-agency record level data, to create a
final research data file that contains only one observation per
individual to:
• Address confidentiality concerns re: reporting record level
data externally
• Address data matching challenges within and across
branches of gov’t
• Provide the opportunity for a richer analysis of data for the
purpose of policy recommendationsData Subcommittee
Opportunity for a richer analysis of data
for
• Ability to collect “universe of all individuals” and then create
project specific samples
• One observation per individual can account for the changes in
status over time (e.g., “arrested youth” “adjudicated youth”
“convicted youth”) to help with outcome measures
• Ability to better understand complex issues that cross systemic
boundaries by using cross-agency data (e.g., track how
populations served interact/use services across agencies)Data Subcommittee
How do administrative data centers
work?
Data matching techniques:
1. Deterministic matching: using one or two unique
identifiers across datasets that identifies who an individual
row of data pertains to
2. Probabilistic matching: using a statistical approach to
measuring the probability that two records represent the
same individual
Model Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or data
sharing agreements across entitiesData Subcommittee
How do administrative data centers
use their data?
• Wisconsin:2016 study to understand intergenerational and
intragenerational overlap of the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems.
• California:2018 study to understand the prevalence and
pathways of dual systems youth.
• Minnesota:2016 study to understand the connection between
school discipline and recidivism for crossover youth.Data Subcommittee Minnesota-Linking Information for Kids Based out of the University of Minnesota and includes administrative data from: • Department of Corrections • Department of Education • Department of Human Services • Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System • Social Services Information System • State Court Administrator’s Office • Minnesota Court Information System • Disciplinary Incident Reporting System • Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments • General Education Development
Data Subcommittee
Minnesota: Understanding the connection
between school discipline and recidivism
for crossover youth
A 2016 study looked at the extent school suspensions impacted
recidivism
Matching data:
1. 70,438 youth whose offenses resulted in adjudication
(Juvenile Court data)
2. Linked to Department of Education records
3. Of which, 6,687 (9.5%) had maltreatment history
(Department of Human Services records)
4. Resulting in a sample of 1,211 youth who had a
history of maltreatment and committed their first
offense between 2009-2011Data Subcommittee
Minnesota: Findings
• 57% of crossover youth experienced out-of-school suspension before
their first offense; the average number of suspensions was two
• 59% of crossover youth in this study experienced recidivism within three
years of their first offense. Recidivism most often-occurred within a year
following the first offense
• The total number of out-of-school suspensions prior to the youth’s first
offense significantly predicted the risk of recidivism. The risk of
recidivism increased by 32% with each out-of-school suspension
crossover youth experienced.Data Subcommittee
Next Steps
• Costs associated with ADCs: including staffing, software
and hardware technology for the Center as well as costs
for partner entities
• Analysis of any statutory changes that may be needed to
permit/require the sharing of bulk data for research
purposes
• September meeting: Presentation from directors of/staff
at Administrative Data Centers to include logistics of
operations as well as benefits/costs to partnering agenciesChildhood Trauma Task Force Meetings since March 2022: • April: Review of draft general considerations and recommendations for trauma screening (all child-serving sectors), and discussion of trauma screening in child welfare • May: Review of draft considerations and recommendations for trauma screening in child welfare, and discussion of trauma screening in juvenile justice and first responder settings • June: Review of draft considerations and recommendations for trauma screening in FRCs and juvenile justice settings, and discussion of trauma screening in early childhood and K-12 settings Where we’re headed: Discussion of possible recommendations for trauma screening in pediatric primary care and sectors with high prevalence of trauma (e.g., teen parenting programs, family shelters)
Full Board
Where we’re headed
Fall (~ October, please fill • Review RED data brief
• Review and vote on CRA Report recommendations (goal
out doodle in post- – may be pushed to early Winter meeting if needed)
meeting email) • Subcommittee report outs
• Review and vote on FY22 Annual Report
(early) Winter • Review and discuss CTTF Annual Report
• Subcommittee report outsNext Meeting Dates:
(All meetings are virtual; Zoom information is in each calendar invitation)
Full Board:
TBD
~October 2022
Subcommittee Standing Time Next Meeting
CTTF 1st Mondays, July 18, 2022
1:00pm-3:00pm
Data 2nd Thursdays, July 14, 2022
10:30am-12pm
CBI 3rd Thursdays, July 21, 2022
1:00pm-2:30pmBoard Member Updates
Contact Melissa Threadgill Director of Strategic Innovation melissa.threadgill@mass.gov
You can also read
